ENIAC did work on the atom bomb, ballistics, etc., but did not begin useful operations until 1946, true. UPenn ran an analog analyser that did most of the work during WWII, and built a second one for the Army. This mechanical analyser spurred the development of ENIAC.
But the early programmable computers that got used for ballistics in WWII didn't so much reinvent the practice as make it much quicker to calculate the tables. This permitted designers to deploy new shells and guns quickly, and that gives you an advantage - even if the advantage is just being able to keep improving your armament while your enemy does not keep pace. Not to mention the usefulness of ENIAC in developing the atom bomb.
Jus being able to refine ballistic tables could have made WWI much more lethal. It mightmade longer-ranged artillery practical, and of course better weapons get used more.
"compared the situation to buying a used car without an extended warranty "
No, more like buying a new car and leaving it at the dealership, taking the keys. At best, it gets vandalized. At worst, it gets hotwired, joyridden, used for a few drivebys, and then stripped and vandalized. Oh, and you're still taking the bus.
Dumbass. He can't even illustrate the fail properly. Who gets fired for this? Oh, let's guess...
I mock the $39.99 HDMI cables. The $3.99 set from Fry's works absolutely fine. Cox cable compresses the strwam so badly anyways that the DVR records massive artifacts and decode errors regularly.
This is an old, old debate - digital cables. Maybe if you have terrible cable that so distorts the waveform you are getting more like sine wave than square wave (and there is no reason to assume that HDMI signalling is actually square wave, though it can be, no harm done) you are still able to rely on accurate clocking and decoding the data. The most likely errors would be caused by issues that come and go at close multiples of the clock. So what sort of cable issue would you expect to have that occurs at GHz rates? I thought so. Not bending it, and actually not external interference. Shielding aside, I would expect HDMI to use differential signalling, and I admit I've never bothered to look at the spec. It just makes sense. This renders external interference much less (no, not 0) of a problem.
HDMI is expensive for two reasons - licensing and marketing. Just count me out of wanting a 6 foot $30 HDMI cable.
And having said that, I have a lot of Monster cable. Speaker cables, where for my setup having heavy gauge cables is good, stereo signal cables where actual gold and not just flash has served me well for almost 15 years, flat coax for under the carpet, and the thinnest coax I can find in RG59, easy to fish and easy to retrieve. I don't much care for the oxygen-free copper thing, but when one of my signal cables starts failing I'll cut it open and see. I've seen the inside of some mic cables where the copper is noticably corroded, and the Belden guys claimed it was due to poor quality copper and contamination in manufacturing, which takes a decade or more to advance to the point of a problem.
At work we require 3 systems for each app or device - development, test, production. Dev and test systems are not accesible off the Corp lan. Apps/services that news to be public are accessible, the others (90%) are limited to lan and VPN access.
I see our platforms patched as often as weekly, if there are security-related fixes out there . Updating the platform to a New rev is less frequent, but we seem to use RHEL a lot, slower release schedule. I see releases skipped for lots of reasons, but not for security.
Exactly. Signing off or not, where I work there are substantial legal and fiscal penalties for data loss, up to and including dissolution of the company or forfieture of profits, financial penalties in excess of revenue, and loss of business as in no longer permitted to participate in that business despite a 105-year history.
Or more simply, risk of losing the entire business.
Your assessment of risk is not the same as your employer's assessment of risk, and likely not very well aligned with reality.
Our limitations here are HIPAA and beyond, and yes there is regulation more onerous than HIPAA.
It's not me that's hostile to BYOD, I'm just reacting to what I see as a nearly false article. BYOD isn't penetrating the financial services industry at the higher level of large banks etc. It just isn't. The regulatory environment prevents it.
But you mentioned accepting only certain phone OSes, and list iOS, Android, Blackberry. That pretty much leaves S40/S60, WebOS, and what, Meego and the proprietary ones out, and of those there is not much to work with. So you essentially accept all useful smartphone OSes with a meaningful market share save WebOS. Not very exclusive, but very practical.
What sort of antivirus do you require for the Windows devices? Do you monitor updates? Functionality?
Do you require VPN access remotely, and do you permit Windows devices to attach to the LAN after being on other networks?
Around here, 'foreign' devices are forbidden. If I were still adminsitering a hospital network, that would be my preferred policy. Acceptance testing would include limiting off-network use to the employee or subscribed user. Family members etc would not be permitted. Since this is essentially unenforceable, it defers to an AUP and disciplinary processes, though I cannot imagine explaining to the CIO why the ER was down for a virus infestation due to an employee's machine carrying one into the house, especially if that 'employee' was an ER doc.
It was my experience in healthcare, expecially in a hospital setting, that outages had consequences, and were intolerable. In that environment, control = predictability = availability.
It's always a balance between enabling users to take advantage of what's out there, and keeping the joint running despite the dangers out there. At the hospital I was at, when asked why we wouldn't permit something, the answers ranged from 'we don't understand it', to 'it's not safe', to 'you already have something else'. The 'we don't understand it' response morphed into 'we can't support it'. MDs in particular would leverage their influence, we would sign off on a self-supported agreement, and without exception (for a five year span) they would require the support they agreed they would not ask for. And we made the exceptions. And we survived.
TFA focused on the financial industry. I doubt any federally chartered bank is permitting BYOD in the house, the regulatory risks are not worth it.
Ditto. We've had one virus infestation here in six years. All it cost me was two weeks reduced productivity as I rebuilt my notebook, finding 'latent' backups of source code and such to replace what was damaged and rendered unusable by the infestation, and a few customer complaints about delays. Overall, for me, I probably lost 20-30 hours of useful time.
Times >3500 other users similarly affected. For that shared drive only.
And they know how it got in. Not a BYOD, but a corporate device, misused. Unfortunate.
Had this been a BYOD, more people over in the security group would have been on the carpet then already were.
I scanned TFA, and it looks like I will disagree with 70-90% of the assertions therein. I can't call them 'facts', because they aren't.
No mention of the security issues surrounding BYOD. For industries that reject bringing your own notebook to work, the assertion that financial services firms are embracing BYOD borders on the ludicrous, with a healthy dose of fantasy. Here at least, in a Fortune 50 financial services company, BYOD isn't even up for discussion. The security issues for Personally Identifiable Information alone rule out permitting any significant use of data on a device that is unsecured. And YOD is presumed to be unsecured, since it cannot be confirmed or assured by the people in data security that are responsible for preventing data loss. That's not 'minimizing' the loss, but preventing it. Nice try, Infoworld, but you're not fooling me into thinking I can load up my Android or iOS phone with corporate data. Not here anyways.
They then launch into how 'app-savvy' hardware is so great. Help me here - is 'app-savvy' another way of saying 'high-performance'? I thought so. Feh.
Good Devices may supply mobile device management systems to their customers, but I can name you a 50,000 seat company that may or may not use it, but if they do it's for captive devices - Blackberrys - that are never going to be BYOD. Quoting such a study is regurgitating their self-serving (and I expect nothing less, they are out for a propfit after all) hype and fantasy that with their services, BYOD is perfectly secure. Again, where I work, promises are not enough. Security is based on assurance. Little of it is provided by third parties. I can't even share data with co-workers in many/most cases. The concept of letting employees run mission-critical (data is mission-critical to a financial services company) or senstitive data apps would not be laughable here. It would be dismissed out of hand.
More to the point, however, the idea that somehow the device changes the nature of your work is both spot on and wide of the mark. If you're primarily displaying data, a table is par excellence. as soon as you need to enter data, it's a losing proposition. Depending on your role, tablets and smartphones offer some advantages.
My brother has been delivering real-time production data to his workforce worldwide (wherever there is a signal, WiFi, CDMA, GSM, or satellite) since Palm first made a phone. He's added native support for every OS as of last year. He sees the craze, and his boss asks him sometimes about how this 'Android thing' would work for them. And he responds that it has been working 'for a while now'.
And no, they do not do BYOD. They supply whatever is required for whatever geographic region the rep is in. But they could suport BYOD, since he supports some customers directly with the same apps, where they are BYOD only because it isn't 'his' device. And he sees the security issues. SSL is so flawed he considers it useless, but there is nothing else right now except for VPN tunnels. That's where he's at, and some Java sandboxing that he thinks is ensuring data is gone when the session is gone. But he knows that rooting devices will some day thwart that.
And since I can root most Android devices without a lot of effort, that alone makes BYOD for work just impossible.
Lastly, I read up on the link from IW that Android is making inroads into business environments that the IT staff are unaware of. Well, actually, I can't use any of my personal mail at work any more unless it's on my Android phone. I don't consider that a BYOD instance, since if I connected to the corporate WiFi, I wouldn't be able to use personal email on it then either. I can. theoretically, dump data to the phone via USB or a uSD card, but that would be logged and scanned, and PII would be captured and alarms sounded. Yes, my work notebook can be prevented from downloading data to a removable device, any sort of device. It can also check if the device is encrypted, which they all must be.
Hype. Misstatement. Fantasy. But it may sell more stuff, and that would be the point of TFA.
Why do you assume they need to wiggle out of it? If no one cares, or no one pursues any remedy, there's nothing to wiggle out of at all.
And New Yorkers may well vote for a Mayor that would continue the policy. OWS didn't endear themselves to the rest of the 99% in NYC, so they may well find out they have little or no support.
Then we're reduced to the argument that like it or not, protesters deserve at least minimal protection of their civil rights, which they do. And this becomes an old argument in big cities; The rights of the inconvenient v. the rights of the masses. We're going to have to lobby for the rights of the inconvenient, because sooner or later, we are all inconvenient to someone. Yep, even you.
And I've never paid for any YouTube. At least not to see anything.
So better than complaining that free stuff has secrets, we'll complain that the secrets deny us free stuff?
If you want free speech, don't look to corporations to provide it. Eventually, this will come to the point where you'll pick up your truly free speech from a peer-to-peer connection, like a WiFi hotspot somewhere you happen to 'know about', then from phone to phone, or in the cafe. At least until they figure out how to block those outlets.
We are in the fight of our lives, to ensure we can preserve our freedom of speech, assembly, and redress. There is no assurance that we will prevail, either. It's a lot easier to suppress speech when it is under the guise of protecting other rights, despite those being largely the rights of corporations - as if they should have any. But that's another fight. Sort of.
If they want to use any of the resin methods, I hope gravity isn't as essential as it once seemed for these to work properly. What I've seen essentially hardened liquid resin, and seemed to rely on gravity to hold the part 'down' so it didn't drift around. A space model might fab the part with an anchor embedded into the bottom of the vat I suppose. Then all ya gotta do is empty the vat and pull the part.
But the subtractives essentially create a lot of loose waste. You may not fully appreciate how much easier it is to clean up on Earth, where gravity holds that shit down for you, that is what isn't airborne.On the ISS, everything floats about. The shavings will have to be contained even more carefully. Sounds like an entire module would be the place for the machine shop.
Gaskets are more of a 2-D problem, send them a Crikcut:)
Hoses are surprisingly interchangeable. It's the fittings that are all the trouble. those are often fabricated onsite on Earth, and it might eventually be worth sending up a tool one day.
My work laptop drive is encrypted. We consider the data far more valuable than the hardware, and they can have it.
My personal tablet notebook has the TPC engaged, and without the drive (which is unique and expensive) it's worthless. If I'm at all competent as a thief, I know this and avoid that model and those similar. The meth heads aren't, so I would probably check CL and find it for sale in a day or so. Ring ring.
In fact, my work notebook, when it is replaced, is essentially scrap. We have to shred the drives, rendering the rest of it worth zilch. Kinda sad.
Personally, I would bolt an eye to a seat, use a Kensington cable, and if it is really that bad thread the cable through the bag onto the notebook. This is mostly to slow down a thief, and leave you with a broken window instead. First step is to camo the bag, either slipping it under a seat or behind something innocuous. In the convertible you can hardly see my bag. In the Explorer, slipping it under a rear seat makes it virtually invisible also. Anyone who sees me do that of course knows the trick, but that's an even smaller window of opportunity. A decent car alarm will help some, but your window is busted anyways. LoJack for laptops sounds good until you find out it's in India.
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes The nature of the copyrighted work The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
Sounds like this snippet met the third purpose. It also seems the rights holder would have a hard time demonstrating the fourth factor, though they would essentially shut YouTube down if they could demonstrate the first factor was a commercial nature, and claimed Google was the commercial beneficiary of that.
The 'amount and substantiality' factor leads you to think that a short clip could violate that, but could we argue in court that a short snippet would actually enhance the market or value by further popularizing the original work and driving even more audience and buyers that might otherwise not be exposed, and did not recieve a substantive portion of the work, therefore impelling them to purchase?
Or more simply put, having heard a short snippet, some of those YouTube viewers might actually buy the damned song that would not otherwise be aware of it at all?
We need to do a lot of work on this, starting at the ballot box.
- The TP is rooted, sort of, so the OS is no longer an issue. If Cyanogen is working on it, do not bet against them. You will lose. And there is another team working on this.
- For the money, even stock, it's cool.
- Even a 90-day warranty should give you time to find out if it's a lemon.
- There will be a support community out there.
Now HP is right to toss these refurbs out for several reasons:
- Most of these came back from people too lazy or stupid to follow instructions and resolve their issue.
- If HP can't repair defective units, by whatever means, then all you TP owners have tablets that are just as dead as Elvis, it's only a matter of time. I'm trusting these were either repaired or reloaded.
- No point in keeping backstock of refurbs beyond the warranty needs.
- HP could be deciding that the end of the TP debacle is the day they have NO TPs available. Period. And the sooner the better.
So stop yer whinin' and get in line.
Oh, and all you crybabies out there with your sad tales of trying to buy one back when - I've heard all the complaints. All par for the course. Bad things happen during these closeouts, and resellers are often either morons or thieves. Caveat Emptor. Same as it ever was.
When I drove Stan's 365, since he'd lost his license, I got some encouragement to open it up on the Internstate. No time at all we had a '76 Trans Am trying to engage us. It's not that we were doing 90 in second gear, but the mullet in the screamin eagle was dodging traffic to stay in front of us, and doing very well for about 20 miles, until we happened on the downhill straight coming into Newport. traffic opened up, and he didn't block us quick enough to make me stop. 130 in third gear was the last we saw of him at all. We turned around in Waterville and drove back on the 202 for the turns. The seller said it would do 170, but I dared only 150 on the straights. Stan made me wear gloves. Your hands sweat when you drive that fast, truth.
Lots of kids with the Trans Ams will jam them into tight spaces, since they cost what, $10,000 back then? The 365 was a bit more, and really hard to get fixed if you wrinkled it. Easy to take chances with your own iron, too. Stan just fell into a pile of cash with his business, so he looked for the most esclusive thing he could buy. He sold it 2 years later, they are not much fun to drive around town. And his divorce kinda took the starch out of his wallet.
If only I could afford a really quick car. I'm stuck with the crap NG900 turbo convertible. What a load, but it is quickish from 50-90. Not like the real thing tho.
The sailing equivalent is having a big old yacht, like a Hinckley, and having to hire a captain to dock it. The bank will make you restore it when you scratch the paint, and you can't afford real damage... So you pay for someone else to park it. Pathetique.
Slashdot Mirror
ENIAC did work on the atom bomb, ballistics, etc., but did not begin useful operations until 1946, true. UPenn ran an analog analyser that did most of the work during WWII, and built a second one for the Army. This mechanical analyser spurred the development of ENIAC.
But the early programmable computers that got used for ballistics in WWII didn't so much reinvent the practice as make it much quicker to calculate the tables. This permitted designers to deploy new shells and guns quickly, and that gives you an advantage - even if the advantage is just being able to keep improving your armament while your enemy does not keep pace. Not to mention the usefulness of ENIAC in developing the atom bomb.
I've seen what can be done in the Ku band. Yep, it takes some engineering to make this stuff work.
Jus being able to refine ballistic tables could have made WWI much more lethal. It mightmade longer-ranged artillery practical, and of course better weapons get used more.
"compared the situation to buying a used car without an extended warranty "
No, more like buying a new car and leaving it at the dealership, taking the keys. At best, it gets vandalized. At worst, it gets hotwired, joyridden, used for a few drivebys, and then stripped and vandalized. Oh, and you're still taking the bus.
Dumbass. He can't even illustrate the fail properly. Who gets fired for this? Oh, let's guess...
Yep, right again.
I mock the $39.99 HDMI cables. The $3.99 set from Fry's works absolutely fine. Cox cable compresses the strwam so badly anyways that the DVR records massive artifacts and decode errors regularly.
This is an old, old debate - digital cables. Maybe if you have terrible cable that so distorts the waveform you are getting more like sine wave than square wave (and there is no reason to assume that HDMI signalling is actually square wave, though it can be, no harm done) you are still able to rely on accurate clocking and decoding the data. The most likely errors would be caused by issues that come and go at close multiples of the clock. So what sort of cable issue would you expect to have that occurs at GHz rates? I thought so. Not bending it, and actually not external interference. Shielding aside, I would expect HDMI to use differential signalling, and I admit I've never bothered to look at the spec. It just makes sense. This renders external interference much less (no, not 0) of a problem.
HDMI is expensive for two reasons - licensing and marketing. Just count me out of wanting a 6 foot $30 HDMI cable.
And having said that, I have a lot of Monster cable. Speaker cables, where for my setup having heavy gauge cables is good, stereo signal cables where actual gold and not just flash has served me well for almost 15 years, flat coax for under the carpet, and the thinnest coax I can find in RG59, easy to fish and easy to retrieve. I don't much care for the oxygen-free copper thing, but when one of my signal cables starts failing I'll cut it open and see. I've seen the inside of some mic cables where the copper is noticably corroded, and the Belden guys claimed it was due to poor quality copper and contamination in manufacturing, which takes a decade or more to advance to the point of a problem.
So tell me, are you similarly outraged by 3D HD?
At work we require 3 systems for each app or device - development, test, production. Dev and test systems are not accesible off the Corp lan. Apps/services that news to be public are accessible, the others (90%) are limited to lan and VPN access.
I see our platforms patched as often as weekly, if there are security-related fixes out there . Updating the platform to a New rev is less frequent, but we seem to use RHEL a lot, slower release schedule. I see releases skipped for lots of reasons, but not for security.
Exactly. Signing off or not, where I work there are substantial legal and fiscal penalties for data loss, up to and including dissolution of the company or forfieture of profits, financial penalties in excess of revenue, and loss of business as in no longer permitted to participate in that business despite a 105-year history.
Or more simply, risk of losing the entire business.
Your assessment of risk is not the same as your employer's assessment of risk, and likely not very well aligned with reality.
Our limitations here are HIPAA and beyond, and yes there is regulation more onerous than HIPAA.
It's not me that's hostile to BYOD, I'm just reacting to what I see as a nearly false article. BYOD isn't penetrating the financial services industry at the higher level of large banks etc. It just isn't. The regulatory environment prevents it.
But you mentioned accepting only certain phone OSes, and list iOS, Android, Blackberry. That pretty much leaves S40/S60, WebOS, and what, Meego and the proprietary ones out, and of those there is not much to work with. So you essentially accept all useful smartphone OSes with a meaningful market share save WebOS. Not very exclusive, but very practical.
What sort of antivirus do you require for the Windows devices? Do you monitor updates? Functionality?
Do you require VPN access remotely, and do you permit Windows devices to attach to the LAN after being on other networks?
Around here, 'foreign' devices are forbidden. If I were still adminsitering a hospital network, that would be my preferred policy. Acceptance testing would include limiting off-network use to the employee or subscribed user. Family members etc would not be permitted. Since this is essentially unenforceable, it defers to an AUP and disciplinary processes, though I cannot imagine explaining to the CIO why the ER was down for a virus infestation due to an employee's machine carrying one into the house, especially if that 'employee' was an ER doc.
It was my experience in healthcare, expecially in a hospital setting, that outages had consequences, and were intolerable. In that environment, control = predictability = availability.
It's always a balance between enabling users to take advantage of what's out there, and keeping the joint running despite the dangers out there. At the hospital I was at, when asked why we wouldn't permit something, the answers ranged from 'we don't understand it', to 'it's not safe', to 'you already have something else'. The 'we don't understand it' response morphed into 'we can't support it'. MDs in particular would leverage their influence, we would sign off on a self-supported agreement, and without exception (for a five year span) they would require the support they agreed they would not ask for. And we made the exceptions. And we survived.
TFA focused on the financial industry. I doubt any federally chartered bank is permitting BYOD in the house, the regulatory risks are not worth it.
Three cars go through on the yellow. doesn't everyone know this?
Not all. we're just the most hypocritical.
Ditto. We've had one virus infestation here in six years. All it cost me was two weeks reduced productivity as I rebuilt my notebook, finding 'latent' backups of source code and such to replace what was damaged and rendered unusable by the infestation, and a few customer complaints about delays. Overall, for me, I probably lost 20-30 hours of useful time.
Times >3500 other users similarly affected. For that shared drive only.
And they know how it got in. Not a BYOD, but a corporate device, misused. Unfortunate.
Had this been a BYOD, more people over in the security group would have been on the carpet then already were.
I scanned TFA, and it looks like I will disagree with 70-90% of the assertions therein. I can't call them 'facts', because they aren't.
No mention of the security issues surrounding BYOD. For industries that reject bringing your own notebook to work, the assertion that financial services firms are embracing BYOD borders on the ludicrous, with a healthy dose of fantasy. Here at least, in a Fortune 50 financial services company, BYOD isn't even up for discussion. The security issues for Personally Identifiable Information alone rule out permitting any significant use of data on a device that is unsecured. And YOD is presumed to be unsecured, since it cannot be confirmed or assured by the people in data security that are responsible for preventing data loss. That's not 'minimizing' the loss, but preventing it. Nice try, Infoworld, but you're not fooling me into thinking I can load up my Android or iOS phone with corporate data. Not here anyways.
They then launch into how 'app-savvy' hardware is so great. Help me here - is 'app-savvy' another way of saying 'high-performance'? I thought so. Feh.
Good Devices may supply mobile device management systems to their customers, but I can name you a 50,000 seat company that may or may not use it, but if they do it's for captive devices - Blackberrys - that are never going to be BYOD. Quoting such a study is regurgitating their self-serving (and I expect nothing less, they are out for a propfit after all) hype and fantasy that with their services, BYOD is perfectly secure. Again, where I work, promises are not enough. Security is based on assurance. Little of it is provided by third parties. I can't even share data with co-workers in many/most cases. The concept of letting employees run mission-critical (data is mission-critical to a financial services company) or senstitive data apps would not be laughable here. It would be dismissed out of hand.
More to the point, however, the idea that somehow the device changes the nature of your work is both spot on and wide of the mark. If you're primarily displaying data, a table is par excellence. as soon as you need to enter data, it's a losing proposition. Depending on your role, tablets and smartphones offer some advantages.
My brother has been delivering real-time production data to his workforce worldwide (wherever there is a signal, WiFi, CDMA, GSM, or satellite) since Palm first made a phone. He's added native support for every OS as of last year. He sees the craze, and his boss asks him sometimes about how this 'Android thing' would work for them. And he responds that it has been working 'for a while now'.
And no, they do not do BYOD. They supply whatever is required for whatever geographic region the rep is in. But they could suport BYOD, since he supports some customers directly with the same apps, where they are BYOD only because it isn't 'his' device. And he sees the security issues. SSL is so flawed he considers it useless, but there is nothing else right now except for VPN tunnels. That's where he's at, and some Java sandboxing that he thinks is ensuring data is gone when the session is gone. But he knows that rooting devices will some day thwart that.
And since I can root most Android devices without a lot of effort, that alone makes BYOD for work just impossible.
Lastly, I read up on the link from IW that Android is making inroads into business environments that the IT staff are unaware of. Well, actually, I can't use any of my personal mail at work any more unless it's on my Android phone. I don't consider that a BYOD instance, since if I connected to the corporate WiFi, I wouldn't be able to use personal email on it then either. I can. theoretically, dump data to the phone via USB or a uSD card, but that would be logged and scanned, and PII would be captured and alarms sounded. Yes, my work notebook can be prevented from downloading data to a removable device, any sort of device. It can also check if the device is encrypted, which they all must be.
Hype. Misstatement. Fantasy. But it may sell more stuff, and that would be the point of TFA.
Back at ya. My 'criticism' is a caution - beware of 'free' services. You have little power to compel them to be nice to you.
Why do you assume they need to wiggle out of it? If no one cares, or no one pursues any remedy, there's nothing to wiggle out of at all.
And New Yorkers may well vote for a Mayor that would continue the policy. OWS didn't endear themselves to the rest of the 99% in NYC, so they may well find out they have little or no support.
Then we're reduced to the argument that like it or not, protesters deserve at least minimal protection of their civil rights, which they do. And this becomes an old argument in big cities; The rights of the inconvenient v. the rights of the masses. We're going to have to lobby for the rights of the inconvenient, because sooner or later, we are all inconvenient to someone. Yep, even you.
And I've never paid for any YouTube. At least not to see anything.
So better than complaining that free stuff has secrets, we'll complain that the secrets deny us free stuff?
If you want free speech, don't look to corporations to provide it. Eventually, this will come to the point where you'll pick up your truly free speech from a peer-to-peer connection, like a WiFi hotspot somewhere you happen to 'know about', then from phone to phone, or in the cafe. At least until they figure out how to block those outlets.
We are in the fight of our lives, to ensure we can preserve our freedom of speech, assembly, and redress. There is no assurance that we will prevail, either. It's a lot easier to suppress speech when it is under the guise of protecting other rights, despite those being largely the rights of corporations - as if they should have any. But that's another fight. Sort of.
If they want to use any of the resin methods, I hope gravity isn't as essential as it once seemed for these to work properly. What I've seen essentially hardened liquid resin, and seemed to rely on gravity to hold the part 'down' so it didn't drift around. A space model might fab the part with an anchor embedded into the bottom of the vat I suppose. Then all ya gotta do is empty the vat and pull the part.
But the subtractives essentially create a lot of loose waste. You may not fully appreciate how much easier it is to clean up on Earth, where gravity holds that shit down for you, that is what isn't airborne.On the ISS, everything floats about. The shavings will have to be contained even more carefully. Sounds like an entire module would be the place for the machine shop.
Gaskets are more of a 2-D problem, send them a Crikcut :)
Hoses are surprisingly interchangeable. It's the fittings that are all the trouble. those are often fabricated onsite on Earth, and it might eventually be worth sending up a tool one day.
My work laptop drive is encrypted. We consider the data far more valuable than the hardware, and they can have it.
My personal tablet notebook has the TPC engaged, and without the drive (which is unique and expensive) it's worthless. If I'm at all competent as a thief, I know this and avoid that model and those similar. The meth heads aren't, so I would probably check CL and find it for sale in a day or so. Ring ring.
In fact, my work notebook, when it is replaced, is essentially scrap. We have to shred the drives, rendering the rest of it worth zilch. Kinda sad.
Personally, I would bolt an eye to a seat, use a Kensington cable, and if it is really that bad thread the cable through the bag onto the notebook. This is mostly to slow down a thief, and leave you with a broken window instead. First step is to camo the bag, either slipping it under a seat or behind something innocuous. In the convertible you can hardly see my bag. In the Explorer, slipping it under a rear seat makes it virtually invisible also. Anyone who sees me do that of course knows the trick, but that's an even smaller window of opportunity. A decent car alarm will help some, but your window is busted anyways. LoJack for laptops sounds good until you find out it's in India.
From the U.S. Copyright Office:
"Section 107 contains a list of the various purposes for which the reproduction of a particular work may be considered fair, such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Section 107 also sets out four factors to be considered in determining whether or not a particular use is fair:
The purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes
The nature of the copyrighted work
The amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole
The effect of the use upon the potential market for, or value of, the copyrighted work"
Sounds like this snippet met the third purpose. It also seems the rights holder would have a hard time demonstrating the fourth factor, though they would essentially shut YouTube down if they could demonstrate the first factor was a commercial nature, and claimed Google was the commercial beneficiary of that.
The 'amount and substantiality' factor leads you to think that a short clip could violate that, but could we argue in court that a short snippet would actually enhance the market or value by further popularizing the original work and driving even more audience and buyers that might otherwise not be exposed, and did not recieve a substantive portion of the work, therefore impelling them to purchase?
Or more simply put, having heard a short snippet, some of those YouTube viewers might actually buy the damned song that would not otherwise be aware of it at all?
We need to do a lot of work on this, starting at the ballot box.
I'm travelling through space right now, sitting in my cublcle.
That doesn't make it a spaceship, and it doesn't mean I'm NOT travelling through space.
It's pretty much all relative, eh?
I do not think that word means what you want it to mean.
For obvious reasons:
- The TP is rooted, sort of, so the OS is no longer an issue. If Cyanogen is working on it, do not bet against them. You will lose. And there is another team working on this.
- For the money, even stock, it's cool.
- Even a 90-day warranty should give you time to find out if it's a lemon.
- There will be a support community out there.
Now HP is right to toss these refurbs out for several reasons:
- Most of these came back from people too lazy or stupid to follow instructions and resolve their issue.
- If HP can't repair defective units, by whatever means, then all you TP owners have tablets that are just as dead as Elvis, it's only a matter of time. I'm trusting these were either repaired or reloaded.
- No point in keeping backstock of refurbs beyond the warranty needs.
- HP could be deciding that the end of the TP debacle is the day they have NO TPs available. Period. And the sooner the better.
So stop yer whinin' and get in line.
Oh, and all you crybabies out there with your sad tales of trying to buy one back when - I've heard all the complaints. All par for the course. Bad things happen during these closeouts, and resellers are often either morons or thieves. Caveat Emptor. Same as it ever was.
Yeah, that happens a lot.
When I drove Stan's 365, since he'd lost his license, I got some encouragement to open it up on the Internstate. No time at all we had a '76 Trans Am trying to engage us. It's not that we were doing 90 in second gear, but the mullet in the screamin eagle was dodging traffic to stay in front of us, and doing very well for about 20 miles, until we happened on the downhill straight coming into Newport. traffic opened up, and he didn't block us quick enough to make me stop. 130 in third gear was the last we saw of him at all. We turned around in Waterville and drove back on the 202 for the turns. The seller said it would do 170, but I dared only 150 on the straights. Stan made me wear gloves. Your hands sweat when you drive that fast, truth.
Lots of kids with the Trans Ams will jam them into tight spaces, since they cost what, $10,000 back then? The 365 was a bit more, and really hard to get fixed if you wrinkled it. Easy to take chances with your own iron, too. Stan just fell into a pile of cash with his business, so he looked for the most esclusive thing he could buy. He sold it 2 years later, they are not much fun to drive around town. And his divorce kinda took the starch out of his wallet.
If only I could afford a really quick car. I'm stuck with the crap NG900 turbo convertible. What a load, but it is quickish from 50-90. Not like the real thing tho.
The sailing equivalent is having a big old yacht, like a Hinckley, and having to hire a captain to dock it. The bank will make you restore it when you scratch the paint, and you can't afford real damage... So you pay for someone else to park it. Pathetique.
You've never owned a Ferrari.